By now even the most obtuse
Fathers Rights advocate must see at least the broad outlines of the feminist War
on Fatherhood. The normalization of homosexuality, now complete in Massachusetts
with the legislature’s refusal to allow the citizens to vote on the matter, is
one more theater of operations in this ongoing war.

What is happening right under
our noses is the transformation of ‘family,’ the fundamental building block not
only of society, but of civilization itself throughout recorded history.

Freedom of expression does not necessarily imply
moral relativism

I lived in San Francisco in the
1970s. I read “Tales of the City” in daily installments in the San Francisco
Chronicle. I had a bisexual roommate. “Live and let live” is as American as
apple pie. It is un-American to oppose freedom of expression. Most people,
myself included, would agree that this extends to behavior between consenting
adults.

However, this freedom of
expression works both ways. It also extends to those who may disapprove of, and
even wish to condemn, behavior of others that they find morally objectionable.
Furthermore, every society establishes shared values and moral beliefs in both
an unwritten moral code of conduct (its mores), its religions, as well as in the
law. A society with no moral compass whatsoever is not a society... it is
anarchy. We are a people, not just beasts in the wilderness. As Shakespeare’s
Hamlet says,

“What is a man, if his chief good and market of his time be
but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.
Sure, he that made us with such large discourse, looking before and after, gave
us not that capability and godlike reason to fust in us unused.”

It is normal, appropriate, and
necessary for a people to establish ‘norms’ of behavior. In a healthy society
some such norms evolve over time. Others must remain constant for the continued
viability of the community. Adherence to some behavioral norms requires more
than socially regulating mechanisms like shame and stigma. To protect children
from sexualization by adults, for example, laws with severe criminal penalties
are enacted.

To be perfectly frank, a penis and a vagina make a family.
If you find that crude, take it up with Mother Nature. It is she who
optimized the process for the procreation of life on planet Earth two
billion years ago with the invention of sexual reproduction.

We are presently witnessing an
acute challenge to several established norms. What is at play is a challenge to
deep-rooted beliefs. The discussion must be open to all points of view so that
we can collectively decide where we’re going. In Massachusetts this is presently
not the case as one side of the gay marriage debate, using the power and
authority of its allies in government, the legal system and the media, has
created a climate of fear and intimidation for their opponents.

Biology removed from the definition of ‘family’

Gay marriage proponents use as
one of their friendly slogans: “Love makes a family.” Well, actually, no it
doesn’t. To be perfectly frank, a penis and a vagina make a family. If you find
that crude, take it up with Mother Nature. It is she who optimized the
process for the procreation of life on planet Earth two billion years ago with
the invention of sexual reproduction.

Let’s remove this debate from
the intellectual ghetto of religious doctrine and bring it into the realm of
rational thinking. The one inarguable constant of life is the instinct for
self-preservation—survival—to ensure that genetic information can be
passed on to a new generation. Let the philosophers argue about the reason
‘Why.’ Kurt Vonnegut called it the “universal will to become.” That satisfies
me.

Homosexuality is by definition
abnormal behavior. (Normal: That which functions according to its design.).
It is contrary to Nature’s Prime Directive: the biological imperative of
survival and procreation, achieved via the sexual attraction between male and
female.The notion that there could be an
inheritable genetic instruction to not reproduce is a logical
absurdity.

When and how did it become
proscribed speech (soon to be criminalized?) to suggest that sexual attraction
between men and women is normal and, in fact, necessary behavior
deserving of unique social constructs and requisite legal privileges and
protections?

Feminist deconstruction of society

I can answer this question. It
didn’t happen overnight. Most thinking people not blinded by political
correctness recognize that the legalization of abortion-on-demand by the Supreme
Court in 1973 marked the beginning of an assault on moral reason. The propaganda
power of language cannot be overstated. Feminists created the right climate for
Roe v. Wade by coining ‘choice’ as the euphemism for the murder of the fetus.

Biologically speaking, the father is the weakest
link in the nuclear family. The dismantling of the patriarchy could not be
possible without the removal of the patriarch from the individual family.

But this is old news. Here’s
the rest of the story.Feminists intent on
transforming a patriarchal society into a matriarchy recognized several
strategic objectives that had to be met.

First:
Abortion-on-demand; next: Get ‘dad’ out of ‘family’

The first was ownership of the
means of reproduction, if you will pardon my punning on an historical slogan
from another self-terminating political movement.

The next thing required was to
define ‘father’ out of the family. The new nuclear family unit would be mother
and dependant children. The presence of a biological father would be optional,
no different than any other partners mom might choose, of either sex, temporary
or made permanent through a civil or religious union.

Biologically speaking, the
father is the weakest link in the nuclear family. The dismantling of the
patriarchy could not be possible without the removal of the patriarch from the
individual family.

Hence the War on Fatherhood.

Men superfluous at best—dangerous at worst

In order to gain acceptance of
the idea that men are superfluous to the new family, fathers and fatherhood had
to be first discredited, then marginalized, and finally demonized. Since the
heady days of women burning their bras in the streets in the 70s we have
witnessed an unrelenting attack on masculinity, men, and fatherhood. There is
practically no part of the culture immune to the trashing of the male sex.

Boys are medicated in staggering numbers to
address what are now considered undesirable traits. Can you say “ADHD”?
That’s “Attention Deficit, Hyperactive Disorder.” Yes indeed, boys are
different than girls. And by Goddess, we’re going to do whatever it takes to
fix them!

Boys are medicated in
staggering numbers to address what are now considered undesirable traits. Can
you say “ADHD”? That’s “Attention Deficit, Hyperactive Disorder.” Yes indeed,
boys are different than girls. And by Goddess, we’re going to do whatever it
takes to fix them!

Male hatred deeply-rooted in academia

In academia, feminists took the
behavioral sciences by storm, from whence stems a never-ending torrent of
‘studies’ revealing the flaws of the male sex. Such studies are peer reviewed in
an incestuous and corrupted academic environment where the results are
re-digested by other scholars in the sisterhood and eventually regurgitated by a
media that panders to women’s issues.

Prior to the feminist
revolution there was one arena where men were already expected to take it in the
shorts: divorce. Since the latter part of the 19th century divorced
women took the children and received alimony from the father. The
patriarchy—specifically, male judges and lawmakers—saw to it that women were
protected after family breakup. And for good reason, as men were the
bread-winners and most women were home-makers without the means to earn a decent
paycheck.

The story of the unknown number of fathers who have chosen to
take their own lives remains untold, as it plays against the feminist
stereotype of women as victims of male aggression.

Then, divorce was an emotional
and economic upheaval for all concerned. Few would disagree that the hardships
suffered by women were generally greater. But following the feminist revolution
and the advent of so-called “feminist jurisprudence,” for men only, hardship
transmogrified into a process of criminalization.

Men criminalized via ‘feminist jurisprudence’

Where are all the social
science studies raising alarms about the growing number of incarcerated men
convicted of “gender crimes”? Fathers jailed for failing to make usurious
so-called ‘child support’ payments, or for trying to contact their own children
in violation of the ‘no-contact’ provisions of their ex-wife’s
‘abuse-protection’ order? Thanks to blatantly unconstitutional laws and the
willing ignorance of other men who have yet to be affected, noncustodial fathers
in particular suffer both civil and human rights violations without due process
of law or the presumption of innocence.

In fact, the economic
subjugation of noncustodial fathers under the so-called “child support” regime
is so extreme that to find a valid comparison we would have to go back to before
the Emancipation Proclamation. The comparison with slavery is not far off the
mark.

Countless fathers have been
emotionally and psychologically broken as a result of losing that most precious
of all things in life: their little children. The story of the unknown number of
fathers who have chosen to take their own lives remains untold, as it plays
against the feminist stereotype of women as victims of male aggression. The
prevalence of murder-suicide in divorce-related homicides points more to a sense
of desperation than to acts of hatred or revenge—of men with nothing left to
lose, and nothing left to live for.

Gay family specialists often employed to
evaluate fathers in child custody

The connection of the
homosexual rights movement in Massachusetts with the War on Fatherhood is not
merely anecdotal. It was under theWeld
administration that the state’s undeclared War on Fatherhood took flight.The Republican governor appointed his gay college roommate, Mitchell
Adams, to head the Child Support Enforcement division of the Depart of Revenue (DOR/CSE).
Adams launched the DOR’s “deadbeat dad” poster PR campaign, as well as similar
anti-father initiatives. Installing a man incapable of having intimate relations
with a woman as the state’s chief persecutor of noncustodial fathers takes
‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ into the realm of the perverse.

If you don’t believe that the operational
definition of ‘family’ had already been transformed before the advent of gay
marriage, take a visit to your local courthouse or government agency
office... Look at the signs and pictures on the walls of the Social Security
office. Listen to the conversations in the courthouse halls, or better yet,
if you have the stomach, go inside a courtroom and witness the spectacle of
judges sending men to jail on the say-so of their ex-wives.

In my decade-and-a-half
experience in the Fathers Rights movement, I have lost count of the number of
times I have heard the words “My GAL is gay.” The Guardian ad litem (GAL) is
the specialist appointed by family court judges to make recommendations
regarding custody of minor children in contested custody cases. Operationally,
they provide the judge with the path of least resistance to the preordained
final custody determination: establishing mom as the custodial parent and dad as
the visitor parent (if he’s lucky) with the burden of financing the new family
unit... which, as mentioned above, is now mother and dependant children.

Some homosexual GALs make no
effort to hide their sexual orientation, naming their partners on their own web
sites. Having the parenting skills of fathers evaluated by people who lack the
ability for intimate relations with the opposite sex takes this from the merely
perverse into the realm of the diabolical.

Cheryl Jacques heads committee to investigate
GAL process

It gets worse. In 2000, the
Massachusetts Senate commissioned an investigation to look into the many
complaints of the GAL system. Former state Senator Cheryl Jacques was appointed
by then Senate President Thomas Birmingham to head the committee. Jacques had
earned a reputation as one of the most rabid anti-father, pro-feminist
legislators in the Statehouse. She later went on to greater notoriety as the
president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization that
championed the gay marriage cause in state and federal courts.

Many noncustodial fathers
submitted written testimony to the committee in the belief that it would address
the bias in the GAL system. The conclusions of the committee’s report[1],
which was released in March the following year, were just the opposite of what
those gullible men expected. Nothing in the report or its recommendations
mentioned even the allegations of the anti-father biases rife in the
system. Instead, the old victim-feminist canards of how the GAL process actually
favored ‘abusive’ men and ‘re-victimized’
batteredwomen were given fresh fodder. New
training was recommended to prevent those canny ‘batterers,’ who were supposedly
hoodwinking naïve GALs and judges, from gaining access to their children.
Etcetera, etcetera.

War on Fatherhood apparent upon encountering
divorce system

If you don’t believe that the
operational definition of ‘family’ had already been transformed before the
advent of gay marriage, take a visit to your local courthouse or government
agency office. Just go and see for yourself. Look at the signs and pictures on
the walls of the Social Security office. Listen to the conversations in the
courthouse halls, or better yet, if you have the stomach, go inside a courtroom
and witness the spectacle of judges sending men to jail on the say-so of their
ex-wives.

Gay marriage proponents
are fond of alluding to the prohibition against mixed-race marriages in our
racist past as analogous to present opposition to homosexual marriage. I
suggest that rather than looking to the past for comparisons, we look to the
future.

When I fell into what I refer
to as THE THING, borrowing the wordsmithing from Aldous Huxley’s “Ape and
Essence,” I was shocked on every level of my being. My brain throbbed with one
nagging thought: “What becomes of a society that declares war on fatherhood?”

Now, some 15 years on, the
answer is clear.

After assault on fatherhood, gay adoption and
marriage inevitable

With the legalization of
abortion-on-demand, where—even in an intact marriage!—it is considered an
outrage to even suggest that a woman considering an abortion should
consult her husband[2],
followed by the growing acceptance of the idea that men are superfluous to the
raising of children—and in fact questioning if men are necessary at all
is acceptable fodder for best-seller books and TV talk-show circuits[3]—the
normalization of gay marriage, manifested mainly as lesbian couples[4],
is clearly... inevitable.

A car with only two wheels
can’t go very far. A car with only one is doomed to become a rusting hulk. Over
the past thirty-plus years we have seen the wheels fall off one by one.

With the normalization of
homosexuality and the imminent criminalization of advocating otherwise, the
bottom has fallen out. We are now in free-fall. What’s bad is good, and what’s
good is grounds for blacklisting, sacking, and soon, prison.

Mass. State Senator Therese
Murray provided perhaps the most incredible example of the upending of moral
values. During the Massachusetts constitutional convention in 2004 to address
the citizen’s petition to ban gay marriage, she stated that 40 percent of the
children adopted in Massachusetts are awarded to homosexual couples. Perhaps the
only thing more astounding than this revelation is that it was presented as an
argument in favor of gay marriage.

Pedophilia next on list to be ‘normalized’ by
psychologists

Gay marriage proponents are
fond of alluding to the prohibition against mixed-race marriages in our racist
past as analogous to present opposition to homosexual marriage. I suggest that
rather than looking to the past for comparisons, we look to the future.

If you are of a certain age and
a recent convert to the gay marriage cause, ponder this: Before you were won
over you probably believed that homosexuality was deviant behavior that should
not be encouraged by law and/or social policy.

What is your opinion now,
today, about pedophilia? Do you believe it is deviant behavior?

How will you respond in a few
years time when the all-out push to normalize pedophilia by behavioral experts
in the psychological community begins[5]?
Will you be the reactionary, elder generational, dying-breed conservative who
adheres to an outdated morality—or a progressive advocate of these persecuted
practitioners of the (next) ‘love that dare not speak its name’?

Twin threats from within and without

The fertility rate of the 27
nations in the European Union is now well below the replacement rate of 2.1
births per woman[6].
The west is confronted with a rival Islamic civilization that adheres to strict
patriarchal values. Their families have lots of children. Without the
Muslim immigrants in several European countries such as England and France the
fertility rates would be even lower. Islamic jihadists such as al-Qaeda make no
bones about their ultimate objective to topple the west and reestablish the
Caliphate. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.

As we approach the 2008
presidential primaries we need to think long and hard about what it will mean if
the next president of the U.S. is a Wellesley-educated feminist. And perhaps
more importantly, what happens to a civilization that fails to defend
fatherhood, and walks meekly into a feminist ‘utopia’.

[1]
Massachusetts. Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight. Guarding Our
Children: A Review of Massachusetts’ Guardian Ad Litem Program within the
Probate and Family Court. March, 2001.

[2]
During the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito
for the Supreme Court in January, 2006, Sen. Diane Feinstein waxed indignant
over Alito’s dissenting opinion on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. As
the odd-man-out in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision
he disagreed with the majority opinion regarding the ‘husband notification’
provision, where it held that a wife should not be burdened with a legal
obligation to inform her husband if she intends to have an abortion. [The
three-judge panel unanimously upheld four other abortion restrictions in the
Pennsylvania law including parental notification for a minor seeking an
abortion.]The following year Planned
Parenthood took the case to the Supreme Court to appeal against the
remaining provisions that were upheld by the appellate court.
In 1992, the Supreme Court affirmed that fathers had no legitimate role in
decisions to continue the lives of their own unborn offspring.At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Alito did not
defend his previous position.

[3]
Dowd, Maureen. Are Men Necessary? Dowd is a syndicated New York
Times columnist. When her book was released and became a New York Times
best-seller, she was the toast of the town on many television news programs.
There are several other recent books with the exact same theme.

Prior to Goodridge, 32% of lesbian same-sex couple
had children, whereas 18% of same-sex male couples had children. “Same-Sex
Couples and Their Children in Massachusetts: A View from Census 2000,” By
The Numbers, Feb. 2004, Journal of IGLLS, The Institute for Gay and
Lesbian Strategic Studies, http://www.iglss.org/media/files/Numbers2_04.pdf.

[5]
In 1999, the American Psychological Association published in its member
journal, the APA Bulletin, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed
Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” by Bruce Rind,
which claimed child sexual abuse could be harmless and beneficial. The
resulting public outcry forced the APA to reaffirm its position that
pedophilia is a disorder, and always harmful to children.

[6]
“Suddenly, the old world looks younger.” The Economist June 16-22,
2007: 29-32.